PHOTOGRAPH THIS SHEET

,, , Dill]FILE COPY-- LEVEL INVENTORY

cc

- APOSt - 7X 90g9 4 ?

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __public _ec e;OI

DISTRIBUTION STATEMFNT

ACCESSION FORNTIS GRA&I D.CDTIC TAB i D TIUNANNOUNCED 5lJUSTIFICATION C T E

.- JUN2 7 1990

DISTRIBUTIONAVAILABILITY CODESDIST AVAIL AND/OR SPECIAL DATEACCESSIONED

DATE ACCESSIONED

DISTRIBUTION STAMP

DATE RETURNED

9@-"-06'26 070DATE RECEIVED IN DTIC REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED NO.

PHOTOGRAPH THIS SHEET AND RETURN TO DTIC-FDAC

DTIC FORM 70A DOCUMENT PROCESSING SHEET PREVIOUS EDITION MAY BE USED UNTILMAR 86 STOCK IS EXHAUSTED.

3 ErC 1D99I aa-R. 90 0693

I ANNUAL REPORT

3 FOR

1989

IL LABORATORY GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMCDF49620-86-C-0127

I IN

UPROGRAM MANAGER, AFOSRLt. Col. Claude Cavender

PROGRAM DIRECTOR, UESRodney C. Darrah

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, UiES3 Judyth L. Conover

Prepared For:

AIR FORCE OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHBoiling Air Force BaseWashington, DC

i Submitted By:

UNIVERSAL ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.4401 Dayton-Xenia Road3 Dayton, OH

I a

I

-~~~~PM Ad 0- so-U- - . ~m

=g Wn No ri-d 0a@ms=aom ISi m Wfmmu OWP -o wo ow wa

*Aucv USA ONY (L" &iW L. XEPOT DATA 3. REPORT TYPE AND DA1E5 CCVCR-0

II Annual,L MU AND UAM L FUOW NUm.

Laboratory Graduate Fellowship Program 61102F

Dr. Darrah, Lt. Col Claude Cavender

7. P MQoin GAIZATON KAM94) AND ACOSU4I) L PiIL40MMs 0nW6jAAIREPOWT NuMI

Universal Energy Systems Inc.

AFOSR[.R-

9. JPONZiNG W HIOG AGENCY NAME(S) AND AG0155455 I0. SPOUSOIDM4i MOUTOIHI

AFOSR/XOTA4MRM j

Bld 410Bolling AFB, D.C. 20332-6448 F49620-86-C-0 127

i i. s4JuMENTAAT X0713

12&. Q&STXE5TOUAVA&LAfiWTY STATEMEUr Tab. WIRTUT"O CODE

Approved for Public Release

jI L A&STEACT (tmoimion jQOm

See Attached

'4. SU EACT T ERM SI A F P G

17 SECURITY CLISIGATWXIL MUM UEJYCASSICTON I8 SEWUM" CLASWKAt"O 30. AT FAUACof ItEPOff OP THI PAGW OF AU~IACT

Unclassif ied I 1nnG afiaAj-t - .. 4f4-A N/A

-Ww apam" awos

ITABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

I. IN DUCTION. ............................ 1Ii. ADMINISTRATION ............................... 1

_ III. STATISTICS ON THE 1989 FELLOWSHIP AWARDS .... 5IV. PROFILE OF FELLOWS .......................... 7V. FELLOWS' EVALUATION OF LGFP ................. 7

5.1 FIRST YEAR PARTICIPANTS .................. 73 5.2 SECOND AND THIRD YEAR PARTICIPANTS ..... 20

5.3 SUMMER RESEARCH FELLOWS .............. 22

VI. LABORATORY PARTICIPANTS' EVALUATION OF LGFP . 26

6.1 LABORATORY FOCAL POINT ................ 266.2 LABORATORY MENTOR .................... 28

VIL SUMMARY ................................ 31VIII. DOD FELLOWSHIPS ............................. 31I

APPENDIX A LABORATORY GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM FORMSI APPENDIX B FELLOW QUESTIONNAIRES AND RESPONSES

APPENDIX C LABORATORY QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSESS APPENDIX D CERTIFICATIONS AND CONCURRENCE FORMS

APPENDIX E THESISI APPENDIX F DoD FELLOWSHIP FORMS

I

I ii

I. INTRODUCTIONCritical to the success of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)

mission is the ability of AFOSR to draw upon the research community in the United

States to respond to its needs. In recent years, however, the number of U. S. citizens

seeking advanced degrees in the areas of Air Force research interests has been decreasing.I This refers specifically to the number of U. S. citizens obtaining Ph.D. degrees in areas

of mathematics and science that are of interest to the Air Force. This situation points

toward the potential problem of a future shortage of qualified researchers in areas criticalI to the nation's security interest.

3 T To address this problem, the United States Air Force Laboratory GraduateFellowship Program (USAF/LGFP) was established. The contract is funded under the Air

I Force Systems Command by the AFOSR. The program annually provides three-yearfellowships for at least 25 Ph.D. students in research areas of interest to the Air Force.S Universal Energy Systems, Inc. (UES) has completed the third year of the three-year LGF

program contract.

3. This report, prepared in compliance with contractual requirements, covers the thirdyear of the program which now sponsors 27 first-year participants as well as 25U second-year fellows and 22 third year fellows for a total of 74 active fellowships. The

report addresses an overview of the administration tasks, statistics on the 1989 awards,I profiles of all the fellows, and summarized results of the evaluation process. Materials

deemed inappropriate for inclusion in the main body of the report, such as samples of

forms, complete questionnaire results, etc., are included in the appendices.

II. ADMINISTRATION

The administration of the LGF program is conducted from the Dayton offices of

UES. The staff consists of Mr. Rodney C. Darrah, Program Manager; Ms. Judy Conover,U Program Administrator; and support personnel. Most members of the 1989 program

administration team have been involved with the project since award of the contract toS UES. This element of an experienced, stable staff ensures program continuity and

contributes to successful operation of administrative tasks.

3 The primary tasks in managing the program consist of advertising (which includes

compiling and updating a mailing list, and preparing and distributing ads, flyers, andU!UU

brochures); selecting candidates (which involves screening, coordinating with labs, and

notifying recipients; coordinating the handling of payments through subcontract

agreements with the universities; evaluating the program via questionnaires; and reporting

results to AFOSR.

The Laboratory Graduate Fellowship Program is advertised nationally and

fellowships are awarded on a competitive basis. For the 1989 LGFP, as in the previous

year, UES focused on two approaches in conducting the LGFP advertising campaign: (1)

professional journals, and (2) direct mailing.

UES advertised the USAF/LGFP in nationally distributed professional journals.

To target the greatest number of potential applicants for the cost, the following journals

were chosen to carry ads of the program: IEEE Spectrum, Physics Today, Chemical

Engineering News, Science, and Black Issues In Higher Education. A copy of the

half-page advertisement that appeared in these publications is shown in Appendix A,

Exhibit A-1.

The mailing list for direct mailing of promotional materials was comprised of all

accredited universities and colleges in the United States and provinces, requests received

by UES, and the names of former applicants. The list is maintained in a database

(Dbase IV) and is updated throughout the program. The identification of the university

departments to which the mailing was addressed was based on a list of research areas

provided by the laboratories. Also targeted were specific departments in charge of grants

and fellowships at the academic institutions canvassed. The departments includedaeronautical engineering, behavioral science, biology, biomedical engineering, biophysics,chemical engineering, chemistry, civil engineering, computer science, electrical engineering,

engineering, geophysics, industrial engineering, life science, mathematics, mechanical

engineering, meteorology, metallurgy, and physics.

Both flyers and brochures were prepared by UES for this advertising effort. The

one-page flyer, appropriate for posting on bulletin boards, provided both an 800 telephone

number at UES as well as convenient forms to use in requesting additional information

about the program. The availability of an 800 number expedited the application process

and offered a more personal communication for the applicant. JES employees who are

!2

I

familiar with the program were assigned to respond to phone requests and assist thepotential applicants at this stage of the program.

The four-page brochure gave additional information on the background and objectiveof the program, requirements for application, duration of the fellowship, stipends,conditions of the appointment, etc. It also listed all the participating Air Force

Laboratories.

The flyer and brochure are both full size, printed in three colors on glossy paper.

The promotional materials were designed to reflect the high quality of the program andyet be produced at relatively low cost. Samples of the flyer and brochure are includedin Appendix A, Exhibits A-2 and A-3. Approximately 17,000 brochures and flyers weredistributed throughout the U.S. and provinces.

In the first stage of the selection process, UES reviewed the applications for

completeness of the packages. A complete application consists of a signed PersonalInformation Form, undergraduate and graduate transcripts, Graduate Record Examinationresults (general test only), and three letters of recommendation. (See Appendix A, Exhibit

A-4 for a copy of the Application Form.) Upon receipt, all complete applications wereprocessed and entered into a Dbase In file.

Applications were then evaluated. The following criteria were applied to the

evaluation process:(1) The proposed Ph.D. study must be in an area of Air Force interest;(2) Academic records;

(3) Recommendations from faculty;(4) Graduate Record Examination scores.

After completing the initial screening, UES provided the Laboratory Focal Point with alist of all applicants who had requested that laboratory as their first choice, along with

the applications of those who met the GPA qualification and other criteria applied to theinitial screening. At this stage of the selection process, the laboratory representatives

were responsible for evaluating the qualified applicants. Using its own selection criteriawhich were in compliance with the above, each laboratory prioritized the list ofcandidates, and sent these recommendations to UES. Based on the laboratories'

3

Irecommendations and the selection criteria cited above, UES completed the selection

I process. The final choices were then subject to approval by AFOSR.

Upon approval by AFOSR, UES notified the recipients by letter. (See AppendixA, Exhibit A-5 for a copy of the letter of acceptance.) The fellow was requested to sign

and return the letter of acceptance. In the event of rejections by awardees, the alternate

nominee was notified.

LIES next notified the university of choice and made arrangements to establishthe fellowship through a subcontract between UES and the university. (See Appendix A,V Exhibits A-6 through A-8 for copies of the subcontract agreement and forms.) The

administration of the subcontracts included the tracking of funding and subcontractW payments. All financial arrangements were between UES and the university, with theuniversity taking the responsibility to make stipend payments to the fellow. LIESS maintained close contact with the university and fellow throughout the program to assure

proper payment of the fellowship stipend.

Administration of the subcontracts also required that UES track the progress of

each fellow's degree program. At the end of the academic year, the fellow and his/her

academic advisor were required to submit to UES a completed certification of academicprogress. A certification form was provided by LIES to the fellow and his university as

an attachment to the subcontract, (See Appendix A, Exhibit A-7).

Certification consisted of a course description, grades received, and a detailed

description of research. The certification also contained a signed statement attesting tothe completeness and correctness of the information, and a statement attesting to the

fellow's satisfactory academic progress toward a Ph.D. degree in the area and discipline

stipulated by the fellowship. UES then forwarded a copy of the signed certification to theappropriate laboratories for the attention of the chief scientist. The original is maintainedby UES. Copies of signed certifications are included in Appendix D.

Also at thr end of each academic year the laboratory was required to formally

agree or disagree to continue the fellowship. This was handled through the use of thedocument entitled Concurrence Form. The concurrence form represents a formal requestfrom the laboratory to AFOSR that the fellowship for the assigned fellow be continued for

4

the following academic term. This form was provided by UES and had to be signed and

dated by both the chief scientist and the mentor. The signed form was returned to UES

for processing. Signed and dated concurrence forms are contained in Appendix D. UES

informed AFOSR of any rejections received.

The program is evaluated yearly through questionnaires sent to all fellows,

laboratory mentors, and laboratory focal points. (Different questionnaires were given to

first year and second/third year fellows.) Samples of all questionnaires are included in

Sections V and VI where results are also summarized.

Of primary importance and a major factor in the success of the administration ofthis program are UES's efforts to ensure ease of communication for all who participate

or are interested in this program. UES has an 800 number and a dedicated line to

accommodate enquiries from people wishing to discuss the program with UES. Calls were

received throughout the duration of the program with requests from both graduate

students, university professors, and laboratory representatives. The heaviest use of this

service was during the period of application with requests from interested applicants.

Additionally, status of the award process, concerns or questions concerning program, and

information concerning stipend and tuition payments were fielded.

IH. STATISTICS ON THE 1989 FELLOWSHIP AWARDSUES received 571 applications that met the basic requirements of completeness

and deadline for filing (January 31, 1989). Based on 1989 AFOSR guidelines and funding,

27 fellowships could be granted. The selection of 27 students from the many eligible

candidates was an extremely difficult process, since considerably more than 27 were

qualified in both academic accomplishments and area of research.

The table, shown on the following page, gives the breakdown by laboratory of the

number of AFOSR fellowships and awarded. The laboratories are listed in alphabetical

order.

15

1

3 APPLICATION STATISTICS

1Applicants'Laboratory 1st Choice Fellowshiips

Aero Propulsion Laboratory 36 2

3 Armament Laboratory 19 1

Astronautics Laboratory 22 1

Avionics Laboratory 68 3

Engineering and Services Center 23 1

Flight Dynamics Laboratory 44 2

Frank J. Seiler Research Laboratory 11 1

Geophysics Laboratory 43 3

IHarry G. Armstrong Aerospace MedicalResearch Laboratory 60 3

Human Resources Laboratory 30 1

Materials Laboratory 55 2

Rome Air Development Center 103 4

f School of Aerospace Medicine 32 1

Weapons Laboratory 25 2

TOTALS 571 27

*6II

IV. PROFILE OF FELLOWS

A list of the 78 recipients of the Laboratory Graduate Fellowships; the universitythey are attending, their research advisor, and their areas of research; and the afiiated

laboratory followed by the fellow's laboratory mentor is shown in the table starting on

page 8 of this report.

V. FELLOWS' EVALUATION OF LGFP

Separate evaluation questionnaires were created for both the first yearparticipants as well as those who have been in the program for over a year. The

questionnaires were sent to all participants shortly after the start of the fall term. This

section provides a summary of the results from the evaluation questionnaires completed

by all fellows. The first year participants' results are discussed first; immediately

following these conclusions is the section on the results of second year and third year

participants. A copy of both questionnaires and a compilation of all answers are includedin Appendix B.

5.1 FIRST YEAR PARTICIPANTS

Each of the questions on the first year participant's questionnaire is restated

below, followed by summarized answers. Twenty-two first year participants returned their

questionnaires.

1. How did you first hear of this program?

Eleven responded that they were informed by a research advisor, faculty

member, former participant, or friend. Seven noted that the flyer was distributed

by the department or posted on a bulletin board. Only two had seen the ad in

a professional journal. Two received information from participating laboratory

personnel.

2. What aspect of the program was the most decisive in causing you to apply?

Some answers included more than one aspect. There were six areas noted:(1) 14 mentioned the funding or tuition; (2) Five noted the opportunity to work

with experienced research scientists or Air Force laboratory personnel; (3) Three

participants included completeness and flexibility of research topics; (4) Two stated

the Air Force sponsorship as a plus to the program; (5) One mentioned the

prestige of receiving an Air Force fellowship; and (6) One noted the full time

three year program as a deciding factor.

£ 7

> TI*O

Io -C

I 40

01 '.0

oo 000G

I jj1

I too

'44

IAII

0.

Ia b

TO - 0

-00 Cd

1111 :14I0 0

m m

I6

* 'a

1110 "pa IlaDog Q b x .uA

t-

oor oo hA

m m m mowl m m Cl~

I, i +.i+ ! !-0

Pi p c*' '18 t5

9 .L.

ZE88

- I *pg

*4 w-Eo

GO 00

cz

Al UU 'a 4 A A1 7

- IN

-IEJ4

3llo

u~s.PAC

I II

""I -.o -

I U

IIlk

oo oo4 0c

Ch m ~ CA mm

- 0s

I

Is ii. ii iin GI

I

I

l0

I0 84NI H L

]]I

00

*b4) 5

I7o'

CA

* 4)

CI

.4., I 4til~IA

U ~ ~403

*El-

U3. Considering the time between applying and hearing that you were accepted,3 did this timetable cause you any problems? YES_ NO_ N/A.

Twenty fellows said it was no problem. One participant did not answer this3 question. The one fellow who indicated a problem, was awarded a late fellowship

that came available after the original 25 were awarded.

1 4. After your acceptance, was the information on the fellowship supplied to you

prior to the start of the academic term? YES_ NOComments:3 The comments indicated that the initial package or acceptance letter was

fairly complete.

5. Did you have difficulty in acquiring your fellowship through the university?3 YES_ NO_ N/A_ Comments:

Only two of the 22 responses indicated difficulty. Problems seemed to be

delay by the institution in the processing of paperwork due to lack of clarity or

adequate communication about terms. Seven participants noted they did not haveadequate information to evaluate this yet.

6. Did you have any difficulty with the administration of the program? If so,

I briefly describe the problems.

Eighteen participants definitely had "no problems." Three praised the

administration for being "very helpful." Many qualified the response by stating

none as yet. Of the three who indicated problems, one pointed to the university

bureaucracy as causing the problem. Lack of information on orientation visit was

also noted.

3 7. How important is the expense paid pre orientation visit to the laboratory?

Not worth expense Convenient_ Essential_ N/A__. Briefly describe3 your visit to the laboratory.

Six felt it was essential and two marked convenient. Most hadn't taken the

trip yet. Six indicated they had visited the lab, and their positive experiences

included clarification of goals, exposure to facilities, meeting people, and discussing

research.

119

8. Did you participate in summer research at the laboratory? YES_ NO_.

Briefly describe your research.

Five participated in summer research. Copies of their final reports are

attached to this report in Appendix B.

9. Briefly describe your laboratory mentor's involvement with you and your

research. Have you experienced any problems with the laboratory

involvement?

j Frequent communication and positive support were noted by a few. Most

had not had enough time to determine this, but many anticipated no problems3or had none so far, even though their involvement may have been only limited.

10. Please furnish below any other comments or suggestions to improve the

program in future years.

Comments for improving the program included the following: pay the

recipients directly instead of subcontracting with the university; and better

information/communication to describe the inter-relationship between the fellow,

the laboratory, and the university.

Also, suggested was to have a stipulation attached to the $2000 department3 grant that the money must be spent on the fellow's research. Other points were

that a research budget should be included in the fellowship and that theg fellowship be extended one to two years beyond the three year limit.

5.2 SECOND AND THIRD YEAR PARTICIPANTS

1. Have you been able to get answers to all questions that have arisen during

your fellowship? YES_ NO_ Comments:

All forty-one responses were positive. Seven praised UES staff for their

support and willingness to find answers to their questions.

1 2. Did you have difficulty in acquiring your stipend through the university?

YES_ NO_

Eleven of the forty-one answered affirmatively. Comments indicated the

source of the problems was with the university in processing internal paperwork.5 One mentioned the time needed to process the paperwork between UES and the

university. One stated that receiving copies of all correspondence between the

* 20

1university and UES helped get the processing complete.I3. Did you have any difficulty with the administration of the program? If so,

briefly describe the problems.

The only problems mentioned were with the university's administration of

the program. Twenty eight fellows stated that they had no problems with the

administration of the program.

4. Have you participated in the expense paid pre-orientation visit to the

laboratory?

5YES_ NO_ Briefly describe your visit to the laboratory.

Twenty nine had visited the lab; thirteen had not. The descriptions of the

visit generally included meeting the researchers, discussing the research topics,

and visiting the facilities. Most who visited the laboratory presented papers.

Several mentioned that this visit led to their participation in the summer research

program.

5. Did you participate in summer research at the laboratory?

YES_ NO__. Briefly describe you research.

3Only eleven of the 41 had participated in summer research at the

laboratories. Most of the comments were technical in nature and can be read in

3Appendix B.

6. Briefly describe you laboratory mentor's involvement with you and your

research. Have you experienced any problems with the laboratory

involvement?

The responses ranged from "active" involvement to little direct contact.

However, none have had any problems with their mentor and most stated that

3the mentor has been "helpful."

7. Please furnish below any other comments or suggestions to improve the

program in future years.

Eight comments wholly commended the program or stated no suggestions.IVarious suggestions for improvement were offered in other comments. These are

listed below:

I 21

I(1) Make clear the IRS quidelines for the summer research participants.3 (2) Have a toll-free phone number for Ohio.

(3) Provide earlier notification of renewal or non-renewal.3 (4) Advertise program more, as most undergraduates seem unaware of

it.(5) Provide copies of the correspondence to fellows which have a direct

I impact on student.

(6) Make lines on this form large.

5.3 SUMMER RESEARCH FELLOWS3Fifteen LGFP fellows took advantage of the summer research part of the

fellowship. Below is a summary of the questionnaires completed by these fellows.

1. Was the offer of research assignment within your field of competency and/or

interest? YES__ NO__

All 15 participating fellows answered this question yes.

2. Was the work challenging? YES_ NO If no, what would have

3 made it so?

Fourteen fellows said the work was challenging. The one who answered"no" to this question felt the assignment of summer research was too haphazard.

3. Were you relations with your Laboratory Mentor and research colleague

satisfactory from a technical point of view? YES NO__ If no, why?Again, fourteen stated their relations with the Laboratory Mentor was3 satisfactory. The one 'No' vote felt the laboratory had a cloudy vision of what

they were trying to accomplish.

4. Suggestions for improvement of relationship(s).

Most comments were favorable with little or not suggestions for

improvement. The suggested improvements were; 1) Research projects should be

taken seriously. 2) Provisions for continuation of fellow's participation in USAF

research beyond the brief summer research period. 3) Goals of the summer

research program should be clearly defined and specific to the expected results

3 of effort.

3 22

I5. Considering the circumstances of a summer program, were you afforded3 adequate facilities and support? YES NO

If no, what did you need and why was it not provided?

Adequate facilities and support was afforded fourteen of the fifteen students.

Material requested in January for summer research did not arrive until threeweeks after the program began due to procurement difficulties.

6. Considering the calendar "window" of eight to twelve weeks and being3 limited by varying college and university schedules, please comment on the

program length. Did you accomplish: more than___, less than.. about

what you expected ?

Four students said they accomplished more than what they had expected,

five (5) stated less than, and five (5) said they had accomplished about what they

had expected.

3 7. Were you asked to present seminars on your work and/or your basic

expertise? YES NO . Please list number, dates, approximate3 attendance, length of seminars, title of presentations (use reverse side if

necessary).

Five of the 10 participating fellows presented seminars. A list of seminars

can be found in Appendix B.

1 8. Were you asked to participate in regular meetings in our laboratory?

YES NO . If yes, approximately how often?5 Eleven participated in regular meetings at the laboratory. The most

common time period was every other week.

9. Other comments concerning any "extra" activities.

Some of the extra activities participated in during the summer research

program are listed below.

Attended UES seminars and a number of research conferences.

Travel to Eglin AFB, for pilot testing of experimental procedures,

experimental materials, and data collection.3 * Safety and security seminars conducted; also clean room clean-up detail.

23

1The UES luncheon and Dr. Burton's "Brown Bag" lunches provided an

13 excellent environment for exchange of scientific ideas.

10. On a scale of A to D, how would you rate this program?(A high, D low)

Technically challenging A-11 B-2 C-2 D-

Future research opportunity A-12 B- C-2 D-1Professional association A-II B-3 C-I D-Enhancement of my academic qualifications A-6 B-8 C-2 D-Enhancement of my research qualifications A-10 B-4 C-2 D-Overall value A-12 B-1 C-2 D-

IB. ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS

1. What aspect of the program was the most decisive in causing you to apply?IThe freedom of research topics and the opportunity to conduct research in anew environment other than the academic environment were two the reasons for3applying for summer research. Also, the facilities available and the expertise present

at the laboratory facilities were mentioned.

2. How do you rate the stipend level?

3Meager_ Adequate GenerousThe stipend level was rated 'Meager' by one student, 'Adequate' by nine

students and five participants said the stipend was 'Generous.'

3. Please give information on housing: Did you reside in VOQ... apartment.,3other (specify)_? Name and address of apartment complex and manager's

name.One student stayed in the VOQ, i0 participants rented apartments and four

specified other arrangements were made for housing.

1

* 24

U4. Would you encourage or discourage expansion of the Summer Research

3 Program? Why?

Three of the 15 summer research participants said they would discourage

expansion of the Summer Research Program. The reasons stated for this were: (1)

Lab staff seems unable to produce much quality work in the limited time of 12weeks; (2) Expansion of administration workload might cause problems; and (3) More

energy should be directed toward making a coherent, intensive program which

benefits the student and research facility before expansion should be considered.

The 12 participants that said they would encourage expansion of the summer

research program stated several reasons.

I• Research association with Air Force personnel.

Invaluable experience for researchers to expand their research capabilities.

3 * Great opportunity for students to learn what its like in the 'real world.'

5. Considering the many-faceted aspects of administration of a program of this5 magnitude, how do you rate the overall conduct of this program? Poor

Fair Good Excellent . Please add any additional comments.3 Five of the 15 rated the overall conduct of the program as 'Excellent', eight said

'Good', and two rated the conduct as 'Fair.'

3 Students comments are listed in Appendix B.

6. Please comment on what, in your opinion, are:

a. Strong points of the program:

A few of the strong points are listed below.3 * Provides a great experience to view the Air Force labs.

* Research association with Air Force personnel.

3 • Establishing contacts.

* Interaction with scientists in research field.

3 • Use of state-of-the-art equipment.

b. Weak points of the program:

A few of the weak points are listed below.

* Support at the lab is thin.3 • Lack of assurance of promised research opportunities.

* Mentor not always available to answer questions.

* 25

I

I0 Not enough time.3 * Students are "self-employed contractor" would prefer to be a summer-hire

government employee.

1 7. On balance, do you feel this has been a fruitful, worthwhile, constructive

experience? YES NO

All fifteen participants said that the experience was a fruitful, worthwhile, andconstructive experience.U8. Other remarks:1 * Will return to the lab in October to complete the research not finished

during the summer.

* Promised data was never provided.

* Way payments for services were handled (billing every two weeks).* Experience with the summer program was very good.

Research associates at the Air Force lab were very helpful.

* Lisa Beljan (of UES) was very helpful.3 * Thank you.

* This is an extremely great program and learning opportunity.

VI. LABORATORY PARTICIPANTS' EVALUATION OF LGFPThis section provides a summary of the results from the evaluation questionnaires

completed by the chief scientist and the mentors at the participating laboratories. A copyof the questionnaire and a compilation of all answers are included in Appendix C.

6.1 LABORATORY FOCAL POINTAn essential part of the success of the USAF-LGFP is the laboratory mentor's

interaction with the Graduate Fellow. This section provides a summary of the resultsfrom the evaluation questionnaires completed by the focal points at the participating

laboratories. A copy of the questionnaire and a compilation of all answers are includedin Appendix C.

1. How do you rate the correspondence, verbal and telephone communication and3 other aspects concerning program administration?

Excellent_ Good_ Average_ PoorHow could it be improved?

126

IThree of the 12 focal points who submitted completed questionnaires rated the3 program 'Excellent', eight rated program 'Good', and one rated the program

administration 'Poor.' The one focal point mentioned the need for correspondence tobe directed through his office and not the chief scientist since they are not located

at the same Air Force base.

1 2. The fellowship selection process is two-fold: academic and research area. Did

you have sufficient time to conduct an evaluation of applications?3 YES NO_ N/A_ Comments:Ten of the focal points felt they had sufficient time to conduct an evaluation3 of applications. One felt that they needed more time.

3. Please rate the expense paid orientation visit:

Essential_ Convenient__ Not worth the expense_ N/A_The expense paid orientation visit was rated as 'Essential' by eight focal points.3 One rated the visit as 'Convenient' and three had no comment.

3 4. Did the laboratory/center conduct a general briefing, tour, and/or other formalmeans of welcome and introduction for the fellow assigned to your organization?

YES__ NO__ N/A_

Eight of the laboratories conducted an formal means of welcome for the LGFPfellow. Three laboratories did not conduct a welcome and one had no comment.

5. Describe the mentors involvement with the fellow. Do you feel there is3 sufficient involvement between fellow and mentor? If not, what can be doneto improve the involvement?3 List below are the comments of the focal points concerning the above question.* Fellows should have to work at sponsoring laboratory at least one quarter

during the year.* Dependent on "Quality" of mentor and availability of time.

Good involvement - fellows have spent time working at our lab.It's important to select a fellow with matching interests.

* All mentors are aware of fellow's research and progress.3 * Mentors are encouraged to visit the fellow at his university.

3 27

II

0 Require the fellows to work at laboratory every summer.0* Amount of involvement varies with the individual fellow and mentor.

6. Did the fellows assigned to your laboratory take part in the summer research

program? YES NO N/A_ Comments:

According to the focal points only four had fellows who took part in the

summer research program and six did not have fellows taking part in the program.

There was one without comment.U7. Please furnish any recommendations you may have on improving the LFGP.3 Following are the recommendations made by the responding focal points.

0 Fellows should be required to work in sponsoring laboratory at least part

of the year.0 Fellows should be required to participate in the summer research program

for at least one summer.0 Ensure a good match of applicant to lab.

* Could be expanded to four fellows per lab.

3 Get college as well as AF support for program.

8. Please furnish any other comments or suggestions to improve the program infuture years.

Other comments or suggestions made by the participating laboratory focal

I points are listed below.

* Work closer with the lab representative. Chief scientist is located out of

U state and therefore correspondences must be remailed creating a

tremendous loss of time.3 * LGFP fellow's advisors should be invited to participate in the SFRP along

with the fellow.3 • Make the mentor a member of the graduate committee at the university.

6.2 LABORATORY MENTOR

An essential part of the success of the USAF-LGFP is the laboratory mentor's

interaction with the Graduate Fellow. Below is a summary of the questionnaire that was

3 completed by 48 mentors.

28

I1. How do you rate the correspondence, verbal and telephone communication and

other aspects concerning program administration?Excellent_ Good_ Average_ Poor_ N/A_ How could it be improved?

Fifteen of the 48 mentors rated the administration as 'Excellent', 18 as 'Good',

nine as 'Average', and three said 'Poor.' Again, the mentor have asked for a set ofground rules to tell them what their job as mentor is. The establishment of a

reports requirement and formal interchange of achievements and difficulties was also

mentioned as a needed improvement.I2. The fellowship selection process is two-fold: academic and research area. Did

you have sufficient time to conduct an evaluation of applications?

YES_ NO_ N/A_ Comments:

Twenty-one of the 48 mentors stated they had sufficient time to conduct an

evaluation of the applications. Twenty said they did not have sufficient time andseven stated that the question was not applicable.

3. Please rate the expense paid orientation visit:Essential_ Convenient___ Not worth the expense_ N/A__

The orientation visit was rated 'Essential' by 25 of the mentors, 'Convenient'3 by 11 and 12 had no comment.

4. Did the laboratory/center conduct a general briefing, tour, and/or other formal

means of welcome and introduction for the fellow assigned to your organization?

YES_ NO_ N/A_3 Thirty of the laboratories conducted a general briefing, tour, or other formal

means of welcome for the LGFP fellow. Nine laboratories did not conduct a formal3 means of welcome and nine laboratories stated this question was not applicable.

5. Describe your involvement with the fellow. Do you feel there is sufficientinvolvement between you and the fellow? If not, what can be done to improve

the involvement?

A few of the mentor's comments to this question are listed below in condensed

form.• Shared office space, his experimental work was of high interest to me.

Interacted frequently on research conducted by fellow.

3 29

IU

* No sufficient involvement, fellow sees no need to get involved with thelaboratory.

* Minimal involvement - appears adequate.

* Assisted in selecting a thesis topic and was involved in discussions of the

experimental results.

* There needs to be more involvement, fellow will be invited to visit lab and

give a seminar on his thesis work.* Orientation visit and the summer research program provide adequate

opportunities for contacts between the mentor and graduate fellow.

* Informal quarterly progress reports are needed.3 The orientation visit was the key involvement.

* Frequent interactions resulting in papers.

* Involvement has been quite extensive.

* Involvement has just started.

* Require semi-annual or annual visit of fellow to lab and/or lab rep to

fellows institution.

3 6. Did the fellow assigned to your laboratory take part in the summer researchprogram? YES__ NO_ N/A_ Comments:Eighteen of the mentor-s students have participated in the summer research

program, 29 have not participated, and one had no comment.

I 7. Please furnish any recommendations you may have on improving the LGFP.A list of recommendations made by the mentors follows.

Make more flexible, with opportunity to take courses at other schools,

semester spent in government labs, etc.3 * Stronger ties between University research and Air Force programs.* More publicity.3 * Students should be required to take part in the summer research program.

The student's advisor might also participate in the Summer FacultyProgram.

I Include periodical travel funds for the Graduate Fellow to visit the host lab.Would like more direct involvement for maximum utility.A social gathering for all fellows early in the summer.

30

0 Increase communication.0 Double the nubrof fellowships.

3 8. Please furnish any other comments or suggestions to improve the program in

future years.

* Travel budget for scientific conference attendance, or lab visits.

* Student and his advisor both participate in the summer research program.

* Publish annual proceedings of research accomplished by graduate fellows.

i • More involvement of fellows with lab.

3 VII. SUMMARY

Three fellows have received their P.h.D during the third year of this program. Two

of these fellows were awarded the fellowship during the first year of the program (1987).

The third student started their fellowship during the second year of the program (1988).

Another second year fellow left the program for to accept employment. The students who

have left the program are denoted by an asterisk in the "Profile of Fellows" beginning on

page 8 of this report.3 Copies of the thesis submitted to the LGFP administration office are found in

Appendix E.3 The contract was modified this year to allow UES to administer the fellowships

awarded under the DoD National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship

Program. 1he status of these fellowships is discussed in Section VIII.

VIII. DOD FELLOWSHIPS

The administration of the fellowships under the Department of Defense National

Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) fellowship program was assigned to

UES by contract modification. The selection of the participants was made prior to the

assignment to UES. UES was provided a list of students to receive the NDSEG3 fellowships and tasked with arranging the management of these fellowships.

The fellowships are awarded for a three year period. The level of support providedis a stipend of $14,000 for the first year, $15,000 for the second year, and $16,000 for the

third year. The fellowship also provides $6,000 to the university in lieu of tuition and

fees and provides $1,000 to the university as an administration fee for the fellowship.

I 31I

IUnder the AFOSR sponsored NTDSEG fellowships, the students were offered the3- opportunity to have an association with an Air Force laboratory. The letter of offer for

this association is shown in Appendix F. The students were under no obligation to accept

this offer. For the students electing to have a laboratory association, a mentor from an

Air Force laboratory who is involved in research similar to the research topic of the

fellow was assigned to the NDSEG Fellow. Also, the fellows electing to have this

association received a $1,000 increase in the yearly stipend (i.e. $15,000 for the first year,$16,000 for the second year, and $17,000 for the third year). In addition these student3- will be offered the opportunity to spend the summer participating in research at the

sponsoring laboratory.

There are a total of 30 students on the program. Accepting the offer of having an

association with the laboratory were 24 students. For the students electing to have a

laboratory association, a mentor from an Air Force laboratory was assigned to the student.The letter to the students informing of the laboratory assignment and the mentor

assignment is shown in Appendix F.

SThe final step in the start up of the fellowships was the negotiation of a subcontract

with each of the universities involved in the program. The forms used for the subcontract3 under the NDSEG program are shown in Appendix F.

The profile of the NDSEG Fellows is given in the table starting on the next page.

32

II

II [ p I 0 2.

1 I **i 1* •

I

040

0o 4)

I0 4

PI P-4 V -4 9.4

IA

I I

ml CI 0 *c* 1. g

4 ma

I8 U

Ia 00

~ d . :I jJ .~i~.~I

;T4.

-E EQ -

Ii

, c w

II

I

II 1I

bAII iii IL~I .3

I;l~j ii

IiI ~ *1III

~iI

~I - -

II ~ujI